Transitions in Expertise: Response to David Cohen

Permissions: This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact mpub-help@umich.edu for more information.

In his provocative essay, "Constituting International
Expertise: Who, What, Where, Why, and How,'' David William Cohen describes
and evaluates the growth in recent decades of new groups of international
experts in fields ranging from the oppression of minority populations
to environmentalism, and then draws implications for scholars at the University
of Michigan.

From Professor Cohen's perspective, the international experts
—especially those in the area of human rights —are powerful social agents.
These ``self-defining and self- confident international and transnational
communities of international expertise'' aggregate power, are highly visible,
command substantial authority, define standards for governments, investigate
behavior, and are effective in their enforcement efforts. Professor Cohen
discusses two cases, population control and human rights, where these
experts have had perverse effects. His evaluation of these effects, I
suspect, resonates with many of us. The `on the ground, just talked to
so and so' experts from the West often do not understand the logic of
the local culture and the powerful forces driving the behaviors that motivate
their intervention. The experts, keen on developing international norms,
encounter conditions that they either do not understand or are unwilling
to take into account when enforcing their codes. At the heart of the trouble
that Professor Cohen targets is the age-old human conflict between the
desire to find and nurture commonalities with our neighbors, be they local
or global, and the equally compelling interest in unique individual and
communal identities.

Professor Cohen notes that the ``challenges to Western paradigms
of rights have come in an era of unparalleled communication... across
natural borders.'' This revealing observation suggests that the answer
to the question, ``Is the world getting smaller?'' is no rather than yes.
Communication allows us to see and confront global behaviors, but often
the outcomes are, as Professor Cohen describes, ``extraordinary ruptures
in the expectations of so many experts seeking to realize what they have
fashioned as global norms.

My primary criticisms of Professor Cohen's essay are that
he does not identify a clear starting point in the analysis nor, in my
judgment, a satisfactory explanation of the means by which this international
expertise has developed. Let me restate the second sentence of his paper
to highlight the circularity that troubles me.

Such expertise is, arguably, coming to constitute itself
... with ... shared values and goals particularly in respect to the
enhancement of the guilds of international expertise and to the motivation
and enforcement of ``international standards''.

The balance of the paper did not help me to understand clearly
what has caused the growth of international expertise. This may be a crafty
trick to encourage us to ask, ``Who are these experts?'' My reading of
the essay suggests that Professor Cohen is troubled by these new guilds,
that he views them with some disdain, and that his views are based in
part on a belief that they operate to the exclusion of most scholars.
But I found myself asking the following: What exactly does he find objectionable
about the new expertise? Which types of experts are the most dangerous?

Professor Cohen does begin to answer part of the very important
question of how these experts have asserted themselves. First, he notes
mail boxes that are overflowing with appeals from human rights organizations.
A quite interesting question, however, is why do thousands give money
to groups such as Amnesty International and the Environmental Defense
Fund? Second, by implication at least, Professor Cohen makes the point
that these experts often operate in countries that are weak economically,
and, therefore, vulnerable to the threat of the quite small monetary penalties
imposed directly or indirectly by various international bodies. Third,
Professor Cohen discusses the globalization of certain professions —probably
the most important of which is the legal profession. This globalization
encourages efforts to develop international codes of behavior by individuals
who are themselves are skilled in lobbying governments and making persuasive
cases to broader audiences. Surely, however, there are other reasons for
the ascendancy of the new international experts. I will cite three additional
candidates. One, these experts address big and important issues. Two,
they often operate on short cycle times, moving from one hot issue to
another. Third, they are experts in getting their views represented on
the increasingly important media outlets like CNN. These factors reflect,
1 think, an important characteristic of these pesky and persistent experts:
they are economically driven to be relevant to their audiences and constituencies
on an on-going and regular basis. Their success indicates that there is
a market for their expertise.

The question of how do the new international experts gain
authority is critical to Professor Cohen's closing challenge to the University
of Michigan to accept new challenges in the same international arenas
now dominated by less academically-oriented experts. We need to ask ourselves
in this and future conversations some questions: In what ways are these
experts threats? Yes, they make mistakes and probably do so on a systematic
basis, but it is unclear how the costs of being more deliberate and thoughtful
would compare with the benefits realized. Next, do we want to compete
with them and how? Their market, distinguished by the short cycle time
in generating ideas and the comparably short life of their ideas, is to
a great extent distinct from ours, which, as Professor Cohen points out,
puts a premium on durable ideas that meet the tests of objectivity and
reproducibility. What risks, then, do we face if we alter the character
of our ideas and reduce their cycle time to meet the demands of media
outlets?

While I cannot answer these questions, I view the stakes
as significant and agree with Professor Cohen that the University of Michigan
needs to engage itself more fully. We need to take on the big issues that
concern the new international experts whose analyses will depreciate within
the next few weeks or months. I also believe that we should recognize
opportunities to work on much shorter cycle times and thereby contribute
our more revealing insights on an on-going, albeit tentative, basis.

The problems of exclusionary communities of international
experts who do not meet the standards applied to academics, I would observe,
are somewhat less severe for scholars in professional schools such as
mine, the School of Business Administration, than for Literature, Science,
and Arts scholars. We business school types, like our non- professional
school colleagues, must organize our research efforts to pass muster with
editors concerned with objectivity and the further development of our
disciplines. But the subject-matter of professional school research concerns
``arenas of practical activity'' and so we must regularly encounter the
demands of individual actors in these arenas.

Herein lies, I believe, a powerful and exciting feature
of the new International Institute and the plans to hire faculty with
joint appointments in traditional disciplines and professional schools.
Indeed, such appointments and related programs stand to serve two purposes:
(i) to bring academics in traditional disciplines into a ``more productively
skeptical engagement'' with international issues and developments, and,
(ii) to provide professional school scholars with opportunities to evaluate
their domains from vitally important perspectives.

I would like to close with some brief words about the character
of the Davidson Institute programs implemented last year in light of Professor
Cohen's call to ``identify arenas of practical activity, investigation,
and advocacy that lie outside the frameworks of their academic and professional
training yet create opportunities for the flow back and forth of critical
insight and reflection.''

The Davidson Institute's programs contrast directly with
the efforts of five of the top U.S. business schools which three years
ago formed a consortium to bring academics from transitional economies
to teach them Western management techniques using standard materials such
as Harvard Business School cases. These academics then return to their
countries ready to teach local managers in Central Europe and the newly
independent states the new ways of management. If one believes that U.S.
business scholars have the relevant knowledge needed by managers from
transitional economies, this ``train the trainers'' model is an excellent
way to leverage that knowledge.

While I will not go into the details of the Davidson Institute's
educational programs, our approach is decidedly different I am confident
that our faculty have knowledge that is useful to managers of enterprises
in transitional economies. But we proceed on the premise that we do not
have the insights necessary to be impactful. Our programs, first and foremost,
develop the access needed for our faculty and students to learn about
economic transition at the level of the individual firm. We seek to have
our faculty directly involved, constructively engaged, and attentive to
developing new insights into the business and public policy problems facing
firms in transitional economies. And the Institute's long-run partnership
approach with a select number of enterprises is intended to create a learning
system for all involved. This approach will, I believe, forward our progress
toward some of the goals Professor Cohen has identified for us today.

Edward A. Snyder is Professor at the University
of Michigan School of Business Administration.